Karajan's 1980s Digital Beethoven Cycle on DG

[HighlandDougie]

I see RO said in Gramophone to try the coupling of 5 and 6 first - one can on Amazon for 1p .

My 78 cents copy hasn't yet arrived but the 'Eroica' I bought for an almost as low sum here in France came today in its 'Karajan Gold' incarnation. The sound, even in its re-mastered form, is, as FHG said earlier, pretty close-miked and verging on the uncomfortable at climaxes (it reminds me of the Honeck/Pittsburgh 5th and 7th). Another reminder to my ears of the inadequacy of the Philharmonie as a venue for this type of somewhat in-your-face recording. Recording aside, though, the performance is the equal of - if not even better than - the 1960s issue which thrilled me so much when I was a teenager.

[Barbirollians]

Not overly impressed by the 5th and 6th - they were apparently recorded for the Telemondial films . There is a technicolor, in your face, point underlining element to them I did not like . Agree also with HD about the sound.

[Beef Oven!]

My 78 cents copy hasn't yet arrived but the 'Eroica' I bought for an almost as low sum here in France came today in its 'Karajan Gold' incarnation. The sound, even in its re-mastered form, is, as FHG said earlier, pretty close-miked and verging on the uncomfortable at climaxes (it reminds me of the Honeck/Pittsburgh 5th and 7th). Another reminder to my ears of the inadequacy of the Philharmonie as a venue for this type of somewhat in-your-face recording. Recording aside, though, the performance is the equal of - if not even better than - the 1960s issue which thrilled me so much when I was a teenager.

I listened to the Eroica the other day and I found the sound very agreeable. In fact I find all DG recordings are rather good. However, it could be because of abusing my hearing at loud rock concerts, too loud headphones and standing too close to amplifiers at rehearsals and gigs that I need all the upper frequency that I can get. My friends find my Naim set up a bit 'in yer face' and I find it perfect. Could be down to hearing.

[Bryn]

... Could be down to hearing.

[Beef Oven!]

[silvestrione]

Not overly impressed by the 5th and 6th - they were apparently recorded for the Telemondial films . There is a technicolor, in your face, point underlining element to them I did not like . Agree also with HD about the sound.

Cannot really understand this sort of comment at all. Have just repurchased 5 and 6 for a penny plus postage, and thoroughly enjoyed listening, marvelling at the playing, and the grasp of structure that creates an unfolding drama. Slow movement of 5 is like a dramatic tone-poem. Loved the 5's finale, so hard to bring off. 1st movement of 6th a little too tense perhaps, and the storm not so well done (or recorded) as in some other HvK versions, but much to marvel at in 'By the Brook' and in the final hymn.

[Barbirollians]

Cannot really understand this sort of comment at all. Have just repurchased 5 and 6 for a penny plus postage, and thoroughly enjoyed listening, marvelling at the playing, and the grasp of structure that creates an unfolding drama. Slow movement of 5 is like a dramatic tone-poem. Loved the 5's finale, so hard to bring off. 1st movement of 6th a little too tense perhaps, and the storm not so well done (or recorded) as in some other HvK versions, but much to marvel at in 'By the Brook' and in the final hymn.

Well we cannot all like the same things .

[Beef Oven!]

Well we cannot all like the same things .

That's quite true, but last week you dismissed Karajan's Mahler and described it as 'glacial', something that it most certainly is not, either in terms of emotion or tempo. It does feel that you are focusing on things other than the music when you make these comments. The Telemondial project was a bit vain in a way, but the music is excellent by anyone's standards.

[HighlandDougie]

Oh dear, having resurrected this thread, I'm sorry to see that I seem to have lit the blue touch paper. My 78 cents copy of the 1982 5th and 6th arrived a couple of days ago: it's the original, un-remastered version. I thoroughly enjoyed the performances but - and here is where I have some sympathy with Barbirollians's reaction - the recording quality does rather let them down, at least played back though my Naim/ATC set-up.

I've compared them with the 1977 recordings (also from the Philharmonie) and the 1963 ones (recorded in the Jesus-Christus-Kirche), albeit in their most recently remastered guise. If, like me, you like a concert hall acoustic (with some breadth and depth to it, as well as an orchestra that sounds naturally balanced, rather than spot-lit), the relatively close-miking of the 1982 versions makes them sound congested at times, not least in comparison with - in particular - the 1963 recordings. Even the otherwise rather overlooked 1977 versions are given more space and air.

I realise that these comments are pretty superficial but, pace Silvestrione, recordings which make themselves noticed by their shortcomings are for me a distraction from the music.

[Beef Oven!]

Oh dear, having resurrected this thread, I'm sorry to see that I seem to have lit the blue touch paper. My 78 cents copy of the 1982 5th and 6th arrived a couple of days ago: it's the original, un-remastered version. I thoroughly enjoyed the performances but - and here is where I have some sympathy with Barbirollians's reaction - the recording quality does rather let them down, at least played back though my Naim/ATC set-up.

I've compared them with the 1977 recordings (also from the Philharmonie) and the 1963 ones (recorded in the Jesus-Christus-Kirche), albeit in their most recently remastered guise. If, like me, you like a concert hall acoustic (with some breadth and depth to it, as well as an orchestra that sounds naturally balanced, rather than spot-lit), the relatively close-miking of the 1982 versions makes them sound congested at times, not least in comparison with - in particular - the 1963 recordings. Even the otherwise rather overlooked 1977 versions are given more space and air.

I realise that these comments are pretty superficial but, pace Silvestrione, recordings which make themselves noticed by their shortcomings are for me a distraction from the music.

I understand your point about sound quality, I'm playing through a Naim/Genelec set up which can sometimes be unforgiving, but the real issue is performance quality. That's what the discussion is about, or at least that's what I'm focusing on.

[Barbirollians]

Oh dear, having resurrected this thread, I'm sorry to see that I seem to have lit the blue touch paper. My 78 cents copy of the 1982 5th and 6th arrived a couple of days ago: it's the original, un-remastered version. I thoroughly enjoyed the performances but - and here is where I have some sympathy with Barbirollians's reaction - the recording quality does rather let them down, at least played back though my Naim/ATC set-up.

I've compared them with the 1977 recordings (also from the Philharmonie) and the 1963 ones (recorded in the Jesus-Christus-Kirche), albeit in their most recently remastered guise. If, like me, you like a concert hall acoustic (with some breadth and depth to it, as well as an orchestra that sounds naturally balanced, rather than spot-lit), the relatively close-miking of the 1982 versions makes them sound congested at times, not least in comparison with - in particular - the 1963 recordings. Even the otherwise rather overlooked 1977 versions are given more space and air.

I realise that these comments are pretty superficial but, pace Silvestrione, recordings which make themselves noticed by their shortcomings are for me a distraction from the music.

I agree - the playing is gorgeous , the interpretations are generally straightforward but I feel a bit shouted at . I love that 1963 set and the Philharmonia 5th too .

[silvestrione]

Oh dear, having resurrected this thread, I'm sorry to see that I seem to have lit the blue touch paper. My 78 cents copy of the 1982 5th and 6th arrived a couple of days ago: it's the original, un-remastered version. I thoroughly enjoyed the performances but - and here is where I have some sympathy with Barbirollians's reaction - the recording quality does rather let them down, at least played back though my Naim/ATC set-up.

I've compared them with the 1977 recordings (also from the Philharmonie) and the 1963 ones (recorded in the Jesus-Christus-Kirche), albeit in their most recently remastered guise. If, like me, you like a concert hall acoustic (with some breadth and depth to it, as well as an orchestra that sounds naturally balanced, rather than spot-lit), the relatively close-miking of the 1982 versions makes them sound congested at times, not least in comparison with - in particular - the 1963 recordings. Even the otherwise rather overlooked 1977 versions are given more space and air.

I realise that these comments are pretty superficial but, pace Silvestrione, recordings which make themselves noticed by their shortcomings are for me a distraction from the music.

I'm intrigued by these comments. I know in the past I've thought the 1963 set provided a near-ideal Beethovenian orchestral sound, which is to do with the recording as well of course. More recently the issue has grown more complex with original instrument-versions and HIP versions, of course. (That's an attempt to stop the blue touch paper being lit, not to light it!)

[Barbirollians]

Cannot really understand this sort of comment at all. Have just repurchased 5 and 6 for a penny plus postage, and thoroughly enjoyed listening, marvelling at the playing, and the grasp of structure that creates an unfolding drama. Slow movement of 5 is like a dramatic tone-poem. Loved the 5's finale, so hard to bring off. 1st movement of 6th a little too tense perhaps, and the storm not so well done (or recorded) as in some other HvK versions, but much to marvel at in 'By the Brook' and in the final hymn.

I have played it again and I do find it a curate's egg of a disc. I don't like the sound - it feels a bit all over the place and perhaps is more responsible than the interpretations for the in the face feeling . . The Fifth has real drive in places the scherzo transition to the finale but the first movement sounds very traditional in a way I just find uninteresting .

The pastoral does indeed suffer from a tense bustling first movement . The scene by the brook is better and the third movement is the best of the whole work for KArajan . the storm is perfectly OK but the Shepherds Hymn for me suffers from some of the same faults of the first movement - there is a lack of repose and it is just short of magic all round. Just a couple of minutes of the Bohm would sum up what I mean .

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I'd be interested to know which "version" of the recording did you get, Barbi; the original release or the Karajan Gold remastering which improved the sound quality somewhat? (I presume that no one has yet taken single issues from the "Karajan '80s" box?!)

But I have a very different reaction from yours to the performance of the Pastoral, which is, I feel, the best of his BPO studio recordings. As ever with HvK, there is a symphonic urgency to the performance (it's a Turner pastoral landscape, rather than Constable) which many recordings overlook in favour of the picturesque - and there's a lovely fleetness of foot and flow that his earlier recordings missed.

[cloughie]

I'd be interested to know which "version" of the recording did you get, Barbi; the original release or the Karajan Gold remastering which improved the sound quality somewhat? (I presume that no one has yet taken single issues from the "Karajan '80s" box?!)

But I have a very different reaction from yours to the performance of the Pastoral, which is, I feel, the best of his BPO studio recordings. As ever with HvK, there is a symphonic urgency to the performance (it's a Turner pastoral landscape, rather than Constable) which many recordings overlook in favour of the picturesque - and there's a lovely fleetness of foot and flow that his earlier recordings missed.

Depends whether you want an HST view or a dawdle through the Duchy! I think that many more conductors take a quicker approach, though going back Kleiber Sr did not hang about.